Worried about Avengers 2

Post Reply New Topic

Joss Whedon's Avengers is one of the best movies I've ever seen hands down and I love every minute of it and obviously I'm looking forward to the sequel. But there is one thing that is sorta making me a little worried or should I say two things and they are the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. It's not that I don't want them in the movie, it's not that the actors playing them are the wrong choices. Heck while I can't speak for Elizabeth Olsen, Aaron Taylor Johnson was in Kick Ass another brilliant movie and I'm sure he'll do good as Quicksilver. But the thing that worries me is their origin change. I'll be honest I really don't read many comics. I have read a few but it's not like I have a huge collection and I definitely don't have many Avengers or X-Men comics and it's not like I'm a huge fan of the twins but I've seen them in stuff like say the X-Men cartoons and know sort of where them come from. They are both mutants born with their powers and more importantly they are the son and daughter or Magneto. But in this new movie they will be neither. Fox owns the X-Men movie franchise and Disney owns the Marvel which doesn't really make sense seeing as how the X-Men are Marvel but because of this they can't have Magneto connected to them or even have the word mutant said. It's kind of a big change and while I probably prefer them being Magneto's kids I don't really know how to feel about their big change. Heck Quicksilver is gonna be in the new X-Men movie as well played by a different actor, but will he be Magneto's son in this version. I'm pretty sure the closer the film gets to it's release date I'll probably adjust to the new versions of the twins but still for now I worry a little. Will I like these new versions or not?

In the comics Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch work with both the Brotherhood and the Avengers at different times. SHEILD is a very fluid organization.

Well, the good news is, there's a whole world of cinematic entertainment out there you obviously haven't had the pleasure of watching yet.

I think a faithful adaptation of the Iliad using motion capture would be huge. I would like U.S studio's who fund these things to think more along these lines. Dan Simmons updating of the Iliad would probably the single adaptation that I would be most excited to see if done well. IF you haven't read it, it's about a resurrection of the Trojan War on Mars, where the Greeks are manipulated into joining forces against the Pantheon. It is very cathartic to see Achilles and Hector joining forces and finally laying into Zeus and the other jerks who are responsible for the war.

On the subject of this thread, A1 was fun enough, and I am ambivalent toward A2.

XMDOFP is something I am interested in. The cast is impeccable, I am a fan of Brian Singer's work, and it looks like it might have a complex and intelligent plot. I also love alternate history and time travel. Used to watch the cartoon too. I will actually buy a ticket to this thing.

Last edited by Stannis on 13 Apr 2014, 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As long as Hulk gets to smash and Stark gets to snark... I can't see how this movie could fail.

Only problem is: Phil Coulson will apparently not be in Avengers 2 despite his TV series revival.

I saw Hulkbuster Armor concept drawings about 3 weeks ago in a Marvel special on ABC. Looking forward to what comes of that.

I can understand the valid concern regarding Quicksilver/Pietro and the Scarlet Witch/Wanda. I'm a little bemused as to how Whedon can incoporate both characters without setting FOX's lawyers off, so perhaps Avengers 2 has earned my curiousity on that basis alone.

That said, I'm a little surprised you remain unconcerned about something that's been bothering me for a while.

TL;DR version, Avengers 2 seems to be asking a lot of audiences, especially those unfamiliar with Marvel's comic universe...

Whilst 2nd round of Marvel movies are relatively stand-alone like the first, they're all pretty much set-up material for Avengers 2. So my question is whether Joss Whedon can pull it off again - namely, a movie that doesn't demand pre-requestiste knowledge of everything else beforehand (ala Serenity, which required familiarity with the short-lived Firefly and arguably, Dollhouse what with that character from Buffy...).

In my opinion, Whedon narrowly got away with it in Avengers 1 (except for the glaring non-explanation of the Tesseract, which required seeing Thor presumably)... but I’m starting to doubt whether it will work the second time around, especially with an increasingly large cast and what looks to be a more serious, heavy plot (given the material) and it requiring more... um... suspension of disbelief (I heard they're working on a Dr Strange movie... how're they going to make that work if he's essentially a god?)

The Guardians of the Galaxy will be a part of it undoubtedly, and well talking trees, space ogres, a foul-mouthed gun-toting racoon and a guy from a toothpaste commercial are a huge ask in themselves (if you’re not already familair with the series). Not to mention Falcon being thrown in and prseumably, the Winter Soldier, Hank Pym (who for reasons I don’t understand is having his own movie set AFTER Avengers 2, so I don’t know how they’ll write in Ultron), Tony Stark stepping down, the space politics they were hinting about in Avengers 1...

Maybe I’m just cynical because speaking as Johnny Foriegner growing up, I wasn’t exposed to much of Marvel beyond Spiderman and some elements of the X-Men (mostly through thosel 90s cartoons). Robert Downy Jnr’s Iron-Man was the first time I came across the character and I only vaguely heard of Thor (the fee-fi-fo-fum talk put me off), and Captain America (who I thought of as a Superman ‘perfect boy scout’ clone, which I didn’t like). I had my doubts about whether Avengers 1 would work. But it did. And I'm glad it did.

So I’m really hoping to be proved wrong by Avengers 2. Undoubtedly, comic book fans will lap up the stuff being put out --- after all, I heard that finally Agents of SHIELD turned around (though, I have no understanding of this obsession with Agent Coulson; I thought he died in Avengers 1?) and it started appealing to audiences outside of the typical comic-book follower. And Captain America is wiping the floor with Rio 2 right now (was there actually a story to that movie at all?).

So who knows? Disney said they’ll be investing in Marvel movies till 2028 for a reason (or so the internet says, I think it’s more about 2020 myself)

So my fingers are crossed Avengers 2 will work out for everyone - not just comic book fans.

I've come to trust Whedon with the Marvel material. I for one look forward to the next Avengers.

I think they're going to have the origin story they always have, but it just won't be explicitly mentioned.

The Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant Man and the Winter Soldier probably don't feature (maybe we'll see brief appearances like Captain America in Thor 2). In fact, Whedon has confirmed that there is no Hank Pym. And Pym is probably not going to be the main Ant Man in his film...

We will see appearances from all the established Avengers, the two mutants, Ultron, Vision, Fury, Hill, and Rhodes.

At this point, I think it is safe to assume people have seen the first Avengers film. People really should have watched all the Phase 2 MCU films, but I agree that Whedon can't assume that people have. Leaving out Loki and Bucky saves a lot of trouble, so the only major issue is explaining Stark's destruction of his suits.

You do raise valid points so fair play to you. It's my error in not saying "I'm speaking speculatively" during my diatribe.

Going onto Whedon's statement, I heard rumours Whedon's get-around for not using Hank Pym was because Disney-Marvel planning to use Scott Lang instead for the Ant-Man movie... If memory serves me correctly, isn't he the 2nd Ant-Man?

I vaguely recall an Avengers: World's Mightest Heroes episode that pretty much re-told Lang's origin story.... and by coincidence, I found that the exists-only-as-a-marketing-vehicle Avengers Assemble cartoon directly made a reference to a variation of the suit they'll be using in the 2015 live-action movie, as seen here: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ori ... 96-pym.png and http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ori ... -ant-2.png

Still, this is all just conjecture as we've nothing solid from Marvel-Disney yet to confirm/deny any of this. (though I think it's a little too much of a coincidence considering the Ant-Man designs they could've used.)

Regardless, I agree partially with what you said about what they probably might and might not do for Avengers 2 (I have no idea who Vision, Hill and Rhodes are; are they a reference to that Agents of SHIELD TV series?). And I thank you for acknowledging the fact that Whedon shouldn't just presume people should be familiar with everything - that's one of the biggest reasons why his movie Serenity tanked here in the UK despite its US cult status; we didn't have the Firefly TV show in its entirety to go on because no one officially picked it up to air. Well, technically Channel 5 did but like most expensive US sci-fi/cult shows, unless it strikes a chord here quickly, it either gets massively delayed or dropped (Pushing Daisies being the biggest example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7347911.stm )

And finally, I agree with you on what you raised about the first Avengers film; the first Avengers film (constantly referred to in-universe at the Battle of New York) is something most people going to Avengers 2 will be familiar with, so hopefully, it'll be acknowledged in passing and then the story can move on without getting too bogged down. We'll just wait and see how things go, for better or worse. But I appreciate where you're coming from, so I apologise if it seems like I'm trying to rally up some sort of anti-Whedon/Disney-Marvel campaign. I'm not, assuredly.

ummmmmm...... YES. I know it'd be huge with me. I would say that Illium & Olympos are one of the best stories I've come across and I'd have to say it's my favorite sci-fi story. I fear that anyone who would take a project like this on, would just ruin it.


The disconnect between the maximoff children and Magneto is kind of upsetting. But then again who gets Lorna? I actually liked her the best out of all of Magneto's kids.

I just know that Avengers 2 could very well disappoint but also be praised even moreso than Avengers 1. I also know that I'd love to see a crossover with other movies, but we know copyrights with other studios won't allow that to happen.

(some spelling corrected)

Unfortunately none of ya'll have really gotten into the comics if this confuses you.

There are 2 big comic universes, DC and Marvel. With in each universe there are stand alone characters with their own series (Spiderman-marvel, Superman-DC,Batman-DC, X-Men-marvel, Thor-marvel etc). There are also collaborations of these individual characters in each universe (Avengers-marvel, Justice league-DC).

In the Avengers several X-Men characters show up from time to time (Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Wolverine). There is also the possibility Spiderman will be used for a future Avenger's tie in. Because in the comic's they appear in both the X-Men and the Avengers, they can be used by FOX and Disney. But Polaris (Lorna), Jean Grey etc could not appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

At the moment the Guardians of the Galaxy will not have a direct tie in with the Avenger's, but it will set up for future cooperation between the two groups. The only character that will be directly referenced is The Collector. This guy has been referenced to be after the infinity stones (Tessaract, and the Aether in the movie are confirmed, Loki's staff has been hinted as one), in one of the end credit scenes in Thor 2.

"Y'all"??

Anyway, just to say I was speaking strictly about who can use what in the live-action movies, as illustrated by: http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/ ... 1_1280.png

As you correctly said, Marvel is perfectly at liberty to do whatever it wants with the comics and partly with the animation stuff; it owns everything there with Disney (not always for the best but that's just my opinion).

But the live-action movie rights are far more complicated. FOX owns everything X-Men related (hence why there's not been one utterance of "mutant" in any of Disney-Marvel's animated media, and so far only Wolverine's been able to cameo) and FOX are still pushing ahead with (what I call) their First Class Saga, which Quicksilver/Pietro and The Scarlet Witch/Wanda play a big part in (especially in the sequel of the upcoming Days of Futures Passed) That's why I'm confused as to how Whedon managed to get those two in Avengers 2.

Did FOX and Disney-Marvel Studios come to some sort of understanding and things are okay as long as said characters don't say or do anything related to FOX's iteration (mutants, Magneto, the Brotherhood) and vice-versa? I don't understand.

At any rate, I personally think it's very unfair if both FOX and Marvel Studios-Disney produce material expecting audiences to be familiar with everything that goes on in the comic books -- that's why I'm very worried about just how much they're expecting audiences to take in regarding The Collector, space politics and stuff, in Avengers 2 (Guardians of the Galaxy especially) etc, etc. If fans want material with the heavy self-referential comic book lore, then fans can always get the animated movie DVDs or something... at least, that's what I think anyway...

I know that Fox Studios and Marvel are allowed to use both Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, on the condition that the Avengers version can't make any reference to Magneto or being mutants. And Fox can't make any reference to them being Avengers or anything like that.

I purposely spell it ya'll in memory of my deceased mom. I know that technically the apostrophe should be where the "ou" of "you" should be, but my mom would always spell it ya'll, and I have copied her habit as a form of remembrance.